Obama open to name change for Washington Redskins

[Pogo]

"...He was minding his business and someone asked him his personal opinion."

You know as well as anyone else that the President is a Public Person... ALL of his opinions, when publicly expressed, become 'political' in nature.

Not legitimately they sure don't.

Now you're descending to "does O'bama know who Snookie is".

 

[TooTall]

"...There was a time when '******' (or Chinaman, or Dago or ****, etc) were not societal taboos, within the dominant (less inclusive) society, in their own time. 'Redskin' is in this category too..."

Disagree, insofar as 'Redskin' has not yet attained this status.

There is an element of the population that is trying to force the issue and to place it within the domain of 'societal taboo' but we are not there yet.

This (the present controversy) shall determine that (whether the name remains untarnished).

The name was meant as a Remembrance and Badge of Honor - a living memorial to Bravery and Fighting Spirit - rather than anything negative.

Neither I nor anyone else who is 'just fine' with that name, can do anything to prevent others from intentionally misinterpreting that original (and still operative) intention, nor to stop them from advocating to take action which, ultimately, takes another step down the road of Cultural Forgetfulness and Oblivion.

They (and you, apparently) read Malevolent Intent and Derision into the Name and Logo.

Others read a Rendering of Honors and Acknowledgement of Bravery into the Name and Logo.

Impasse.

Not necessarily.

I submit that redskin, like ****** (though not to the same degree) was always the word of the oppressor for the oppressed, IOW always the POV of the self-styled "superior" entity. It has no 'noble' or otherwise positive connotation. And you don't find Indians referring to themselves as redskins.

--- And why would they anyway; it's a relative term, meaningful only to a race that has a different coloured skin. Which means it designates an "other" -- regardless whether that "other" is adjudged inferior or not, an other. Some racial anomaly set apart.

Now we've (I think) established that we wouldn't call a team the New York Negroes. Would we call a team the Buffalo Black Skins? Or the Atlanta African Americans?

Discuss.

How about calling the former Milwaukee Braves the Atlanta Braves?

 

[Pogo]

"...He was minding his business and someone asked him his personal opinion."

You know as well as anyone else that the President is a Public Person - ALL of his opinions, when publicly expressed, become 'political' in nature.

Sounds like a personal problem of the people judging him for it to me. Should he avoid the question?

They won't answer that question, will they? Apparently a POTUS should just go

Not reported in the OP: a moment later he opined that the Chicago Bulls "will be good this year". Nobody seems to whine about that as "mind your own business".

 

[Pogo]

Disagree, insofar as 'Redskin' has not yet attained this status.

There is an element of the population that is trying to force the issue and to place it within the domain of 'societal taboo' but we are not there yet.

This (the present controversy) shall determine that (whether the name remains untarnished).

The name was meant as a Remembrance and Badge of Honor - a living memorial to Bravery and Fighting Spirit - rather than anything negative.

Neither I nor anyone else who is 'just fine' with that name, can do anything to prevent others from intentionally misinterpreting that original (and still operative) intention, nor to stop them from advocating to take action which, ultimately, takes another step down the road of Cultural Forgetfulness and Oblivion.

They (and you, apparently) read Malevolent Intent and Derision into the Name and Logo.

Others read a Rendering of Honors and Acknowledgement of Bravery into the Name and Logo.

Impasse.

Not necessarily.

I submit that redskin, like ****** (though not to the same degree) was always the word of the oppressor for the oppressed, IOW always the POV of the self-styled "superior" entity. It has no 'noble' or otherwise positive connotation. And you don't find Indians referring to themselves as redskins.

--- And why would they anyway; it's a relative term, meaningful only to a race that has a different coloured skin. Which means it designates an "other" -- regardless whether that "other" is adjudged inferior or not, an other. Some racial anomaly set apart.

Now we've (I think) established that we wouldn't call a team the New York Negroes. Would we call a team the Buffalo Black Skins? Or the Atlanta African Americans?

Discuss.

How about calling the former Milwaukee Braves the Atlanta Braves?

Uh - they already are. And before Milwaukee they were the Boston Braves. What's your point?

 

[Kondor3]

"...He was minding his business and someone asked him his personal opinion."

You know as well as anyone else that the President is a Public Person - ALL of his opinions, when publicly expressed, become 'political' in nature.

Sounds like a personal problem of the people judging him for it to me. Should he avoid the question?

That's a damned fine question.

And I don't have a straight and honest answer for you.

I would like to THINK that I would say something along the lines of...

"You know, I'm gonna stay outta that one. I see the point of those who take offense, and I see the point of those who see it as a label denoting bravery and fighting spirit. I've got a personal opinion on the subject but I think the President of the United States should probably keep his nose out of such squabbles, so I'm gonna take a pass."

But I wasn't personally on the hot-seat with only a second or two to reflect, in advance...

Which is why I can't say one way or the other, with honest certainty.

But none of that changes the idea that all of a President's opinions, when expressed publicly, become 'political'.

 

[Asclepias]

You know as well as anyone else that the President is a Public Person - ALL of his opinions, when publicly expressed, become 'political' in nature.

Sounds like a personal problem of the people judging him for it to me. Should he avoid the question?

That's a damned fine question.

And I don't have a straight and honest answer for you.

I would like to THINK that I would say something along the lines of...

"You know, I'm gonna stay outta that one. I see the point of those who take offense, and I see the point of those who see it as a label denoting bravery and fighting spirit. I've got a personal opinion on the subject but I think the President of the United States should probably keep his nose out of such squabbles, so I'm gonna take a pass."

...but I wasn't personally on the hot-seat with only a second or two to reflect, in advance.

I see. So you think if he took your wisdom then everything would be ok? Unfortunately it has been proven that people like to hear the opinion of the POTUS. Thats why the media asks those questions. When they avoid those questions people like to rip them apart as well. So your theory appears to be that he should appear clueless or uncaring rather than engaged and empathetic?

 

[Pogo]

You know as well as anyone else that the President is a Public Person - ALL of his opinions, when publicly expressed, become 'political' in nature.

Sounds like a personal problem of the people judging him for it to me. Should he avoid the question?

That's a damned fine question.

And I don't have a straight and honest answer for you.

I would like to THINK that I would say something along the lines of...

"You know, I'm gonna stay outta that one. I see the point of those who take offense, and I see the point of those who see it as a label denoting bravery and fighting spirit. I've got a personal opinion on the subject but I think the President of the United States should probably keep his nose out of such squabbles, so I'm gonna take a pass."

You've basically paraphrased what he did say, with the addition of "I'm gonna take a pass" which, though a decent football pun, would have had Roo posting a thread about "Obabble Wimps Out, Won't Touch Pigskin Question" and moan and groan that the POTUS didn't put the whole side of sensitivity in the bag where he wants it. Whattaya gonna do.

But I wasn't personally on the hot-seat with only a second or two to reflect, in advance...

Which is why I can't say one way or the other, with honest certainty.

But none of that changes the idea that all of a President's opinions, when expressed publicly, become 'political'.

No, they don't. They just don't.

Is opining that the Bulls are going to have a good season a "political" remark?

Nixon used to comment on sports and predictions -- were those "political"? Or are they human-interest factors thrown in to otherwise-news articles that attach the pol to some commonality with the commoners, e.g. being a sports fan?

 

[Kondor3]

I see. So you think if he took your wisdom then everything would be ok?...

I neither explicitly stated nor even implied any such thing.

 

[Asclepias]

I see. So you think if he took your wisdom then everything would be ok?...

I neither explicitly stated nor even implied any such thing.

Except that you did cleverly imply by using this line.

I would like to THINK that I would say something along the lines of...

 

[Kondor3]

"..."

Pogo, old sod, we obviously disagree on this, and we are both at-risk of engaging in automatic gainsay. We have each served-up our opinions, reinforcing commentary, and even a wee bit of concession to logic in my own case, but we are, indeed, at loggerheads.

As to everything a President says being 'political', I continue to hold my stated position; right down to a for-fun smart-ass remark about Bulls or Bears or whatnot. It's ALL political; if, by that, we define 'political' as anything that pundits and critics can latch onto, to point the finger of bias; or, in the case of the 'Redskins' manufactured name-controversy, unnecessarily pouring gasoline onto a previously tiny fire.

 

[Kondor3]

I see. So you think if he took your wisdom then everything would be ok?...

I neither explicitly stated nor even implied any such thing.

Except that you did cleverly imply by using this line.

I would like to THINK that I would say something along the lines of...

I merely served-up an Alternative Approach as illustration, in response to one of your previous posts...

You are free to read whatever you like into that...

It is a matter of little consequence to me...

 

[Tank]

It's funny how Indians feel disrespected because their names are on sports teams, but do not have a problem with their names on casinos that serve alcohol and gambling, two things that have hurt the Indian people

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obama, in an interview with The Associated Press, said team names such as the Redskins offend "a sizable group of people." He said that while fans get attached to the names, nostalgia may not be a good enough reason to keep them in place.

News from The Associated Press

Uh....hey Cracka Ass.....mind yo own bidness.

If he wants to change the name, tell him to buy the team and change it. Until then, or until he is out of office, he shouldn't express an opinion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He was asked a question, he answered it. He gave the most non-committal, safe answer he possibly could have given.

What exactly are you guys "outraged" about?

The most non committal answer would have been saying that as president it isn't his place to say anything.

By the way, how is naming a football team after a group of warriors offensive? Should the Vikings change their name in or not to offends white people? Is calling a team the Packers offensive to meat packers? Or even homosexuals? The Cowboys should change their name too, I am pretty sure cowboys is pretty offensive to the fake Indians that get offended by being honored as warriors.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

He was asked a question, he answered it. He gave the most non-committal, safe answer he possibly could have given.

What exactly are you guys "outraged" about?

The most non committal answer would have been saying that as president it isn't his place to say anything.

By the way, how is naming a football team after a group of warriors offensive? Should the Vikings change their name in or not to offends white people? Is calling a team the Packers offensive to meat packers? Or even homosexuals? The Cowboys should change their name too, I am pretty sure cowboys is pretty offensive to the fake Indians that get offended by being honored as warriors.

I don't think it's offensive.

Nor do I think Obama's comments were.

I'm baffled by the idea that Presidents aren't allowed to hold opinions on things that you don't approve of.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He was asked a question, he answered it. He gave the most non-committal, safe answer he possibly could have given.

What exactly are you guys "outraged" about?

The link doesn't have it.....who asked the question and how was it phrased?

Here's the transcript:

Transcript: AP Interview With President Obama | KRWG

Q: If I could just ask you one last question on something that's not politically related, but is getting a lot of attention in Washington -- the name of the Washington Redskins football team. There is a lot of people who say it's time to change the name of that team, considering that it's insulting to many Native Americans. What's your position on that?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, Julie, obviously, people get pretty attached to team names, mascots. I don't think there are any Redskins fans that mean offense. I've got to say that if I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team -- even if it had a storied history -- that was offending a sizeable group of people, I'd think about changing it.

That is not all he said, he thinks every team that has a name that some fake indians find offensive should consider changing their name.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9uqmh0dquw]AP Interview: Obama on Redskins Name Change - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Washington Redskins had their attorney respond to President Obama's suggestion that the football team change its name.

"We at the Redskins respect everyone," said a statement from attorney Lanny J. Davis. "But like devoted fans of the Atlanta Braves, the Cleveland Indians and the Chicago Blackhawks (from President Obama's hometown ), we love our team and its name and, like those fans, we do not intend to disparage or disrespect a racial or ethnic group."


"As a supporter of President Obama, I am sure the president is not aware that in the highly respected Annenberg Institute poll (taken 2004) with a national sample of Native Americans, 9 out of 10 Native Americans said they were not bothered by the name the 'Washington Redskins.'

"The president made these comments to the Associated Press, but he was apparently unaware that an April 2013 AP poll showed that eight out of ten of all Americans in a national sample don't think the Washington Redskins name should be changed.


Redskins attorney responds to Obama

Braves is not disparaging.

Although, their play in the NLCS certainly is.

Were you asleep when your fake indians went apeshit over the Tomahawk Chop?

By the way, fake indians have been complaining about the Braves since the 1940s. Just because you aren't offended doesn't mean fake indians aren't.

Native American mascot controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obama, in an interview with The Associated Press, said team names such as the Redskins offend "a sizable group of people." He said that while fans get attached to the names, nostalgia may not be a good enough reason to keep them in place.

News from The Associated Press

Uh....hey Cracka Ass.....mind yo own bidness.

Show me where he makes the official decision as to the name of the Washington football team. Or is he just expressing his opinion?

Really neither. This was one lifted from one answer to one question at the end of an unrelated interview -- none of which (the rest of the interview) is quoted here-- and cherrypicked-stitched together to make it look like something it isn't. Doc laid this all out in post 15, yet on and on it goes as if it's still some kind of legitimate event.

It's like you said Bo - these wags just generate myth-thread after myth-thread in hopes that the unwashed will assume it as true, like the Amber Alerts.

I just love the delicious irony of the OP taking a snippet of a response to a question, completely out of context, and then going "hey Cracka Ass.....mind yo own bidness"

What a maroon.

Another lie filled defense of Obama, what a surprise.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

^^^Another hater of free speech.

How is that hating free speech?

You're against Obama giving his opinion.

I am against any president expressing an opinion like this. His job is to run the ******* country, not stir up hatred.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How is that hating free speech?

You're against Obama giving his opinion.

No, he's against O'bama answering a reporter's unsolicited question.

Now if somebody else got asked the same question, I doubt there'd even be a thread about it, even given the same answer.

Reporters who ask Obama unsolicited questions get chewed out by The Prickly One. My guess is he knew it was coming, and approved it so he could appear wise to the idiots, like you, who always defend him.